The essence of democracy
This kind of “democracy” (a) excluded all people from being given posts according to their qualification or on merit. The Party member was the one to be rewarded. (b) personal merit meant nothing , for loyalty and usefulness to the Party was the most important qualification (c) in any case involving the Party the Courts were not the Court of law or do justice, but were to be subservient to the Party interests.
Here one may just the local scene in view, the rewarding of Party affiliates irrespective of merit, the attempt to make judiciary subservient to the Power, rewarding all kind of rewards to Party loyalist, be it literary reward or high grade job to a loyalist etc.
Just the opposite is the situation in countries which are/were outside this communist People’s Democratic Republics which were considered normal democracies- like in the West etc. There is no doubt about their being democratic where the state is for all citizens, all are equal before the Law, from worker to the persons of upper echelon. Law is above the Regime, and can give judgment against the Government. Courts are courts jobs are given according to the qualifications and merit and not party affiliations. Courts are Courts not with a myopic vision but with wide view. .
Who is responsible for the different social system in a country ? Anyway, level of political consciousness of the people is most important. In Pakistan it is divided into rural and urban populations Rural is wadera controlled and in reality ruled. Urban population has a middle class and workers both are. politically conscious people.
The majority is rural population wadera captive constituency . So true democracy does not exist in Pakistan and will not unless wadera is eliminated as a class as was done in India right after independence. “Votes” do not reflect the will of the people. The claim that “we” have been voted into power is half the truth. It is a formalistic claim devoid of factual reality. The present elections remind one of the similarity with the British constituencies in the UK that prevailed there in the mid nineteenth century where there were bought safe constituencies which if my memory does not fail was rectified by Robert Peel’ .s reforms.
In the advanced countries, and even in India they have a base of technology, scientists, financiers, industry to help the ruling elite even if they are modestly experienced, or mediocre. Pakistan could not develop such national muscles. Nor there is any conscious policy to develop this base. At present the rulers concentrates on what is called “politics” or power game which means keeping power through nepotism, favouritism, cronism, and is hostile to merit Political leaders believe in promotion of their own interests, More and more political leaders treat politics as a means of personal enrichment which means making corruption an instrument of getting things done. Those who were low class business men or petty landlords of desert lands have become extraordinarily rich
Perhaps there is close relationship between culture and democracy. Why Latin America had become banana republics, but not North America; Britons have a sober and mature democracy, French and Italian have “vibrant” democracy, and Germanic people, Norwegian, Swede, stable democratic system, Middle East quite unpredictable, Hindus, Chinese Japanese have a somber approach to politics, Democracy does not mean the same thing to European and Africans although the African chief is much down to earth than power drunk wadera..
Second installment of my last article “When Pakistan was Pakistan” was drastically cut in editing being too long. Some very important mile stones of Pakistan’s assertive foreign policy were left out in this editing . I may just mention them here to complete the record: In 1949, Pakistan raised in the UN the question of grant of right of Self determination to French and Italian colonies and territories in Africa which were Libya, the Maghreb or Tunisia, Morocco. Algeria to begin with and later Somaliland and Eritrea. In ‘1949 , the question of disposal of these territories came up before the Third Session of the General Assembly. At that time Fezan of Libya was under French occupation and two other parts of Libya were under British military occupation. Plans were to give these territories for a decade under Trusteeship to Britain, France and Italy- the last a defeated power in WW II. Pakistan opposed these plans, on the grounds that Trusteeship status would perpetuate their colonial rule to begin with for a decade. .
Pakistan opposed the plan and proposed that all three parts of Libya, Cyrenica under the British, Fezan under the French and Tripolitania under Italy were fit to be independent should be joined into one country, Libya, and given independence. After much opposition, Pakistan’s suggestion was accepted Pakistan was included in the UN Commission to set up Libyan National Assembly and finally Libya and in 1951, Libya as an independent unified country came into existence.
It was Libya’s independence that intensified the demand of the Maghreb countries to be independent. In 1949 also came up the question of future of Somaliland and Eritrea. At the First Committee of the UN General Assembly it was proposed that Somalia be given under Italian Trusteeship and Eritrea be divided into two, one part merged into Sudan and the other in Ethiopia . Pakistan’s opposition to Italian Trusteeship for Somaliland was not accepted fully but a compromised was made and Egypt. Columbia and Philippines were appointed to supervise the Italian Trusteeship. Here too Pakistan had proposed that those portions of Somaliland which were under British, French and Ethiopian possession be merged into Somalia .Somalia’s Trusteeship came to an end in 1960.
Pakistan saved Eritrea being annihilated by the merger and thanks to Pakistan it kept its territorial integrity, this is a short account of Pakistan’s struggle to get the right of self determination to the former French and Italian colonies. The concluding sentence in my article was “And this is where this account of Pakistan’s independent foreign policy ends. “